It is possible for information to the leave a black hole. Entanglement is a
feature of quantum mechanics that allows particles to share a much closer
relationship than classical physics permits. A measurement on one part of an
entangled system reveals the properties of the other part, even if they are
physically separated. So even if one of the entangled particles is in a
black hole we can gain information about that particle from the particle
that is not in the black hole. Moreover if a person in a black hole can
control an entangled particle that enters a black hole he can commutate with
the outside of the black hole.

James Briggs:
It is possible for information to the leave a black hole. Entanglement is a
feature of quantum mechanics that allows particles to share a much closer
relationship than classical physics permits. A measurement on one part of an
entangled system reveals the properties of the other part, even if they are
physically separated.

That doesn't mean you can exploit that to communicate faster-than-light.

So even if one of the entangled particles is in a
black hole we can gain information about that particle from the particle
that is not in the black hole. Moreover if a person in a black hole can
control an entangled particle that enters a black hole he can commutate with
the outside of the black hole.

You should think about that some mre - especially the part about
the possibity of "controlling" one particle in an "entangled" pair
without destroying the coherence .

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:18:00 -0000,
(Bilge) wrote:

James Briggs:
It is possible for information to the leave a black hole. Entanglement is a
feature of quantum mechanics that allows particles to share a much closer
relationship than classical physics permits. A measurement on one part of an
entangled system reveals the properties of the other part, even if they are
physically separated.

That doesn't mean you can exploit that to communicate faster-than-light.

You are correct but you can gain information about the Black Hole. Not
an important piece of information I will grant you but not all
information is lost in a Black Hole.


So even if one of the entangled particles is in a
black hole we can gain information about that particle from the particle
that is not in the black hole. Moreover if a person in a black hole can
control an entangled particle that enters a black hole he can commutate with
the outside of the black hole.

You should think about that some mre - especially the part about
the possibity of "controlling" one particle in an "entangled" pair
without destroying the coherence .

I still don't know how to communicate out of a Black Hole. The
Calcutta Paradox might alow a way. With the Calcutta Paradox shoot a
line of single photons at a mirror and have the mirror split the
photons in two if the photon is a wave and not split it is not a wave.
You can control if the wave splits or not later on by testing it as a
wave or a particle. So may be you could send a stream of photons into
a Black Hole and the person who is in the Black Hole could set up a
Telegraph based on testing the photon as a wave or a particle. Then
the photon that did not go into the Black Hole would reflect the test
done in the Black Hole. If the people outside the Black Hole detect a
wave then they know the person in the Black Hole tested the photon as
a wave. If there is no photon then they know the photon was tested as
a particle and therefore didn't split at the mirror.

So how I don't think that this would work but I am not sure why,

James Briggs wrote:

[snip]

Being inside a black hole means that the particle would have to be
contained within a trapped surface, thereby ensuring that all
future-directed paths end on the singularity. Communication with any
region outside the event horizon is forbidden for exactly the same
reason that communication "through" the singularity is forbidden: causal
discontinuity.

Read some more.

James Briggs wrote:
It is possible for information to the leave a black hole.

Not in GR. Note that GR is the only theory for which we have a clear
definition of what a black hole is.

The quasi-quantum notions you introduce are in a gray area in which we
have no good theory, and therefore no firm knowledge. But there IS a lot
of knowledge about quantum mechanics itself, and your claims are in
conflict with that.


Entanglement is a
feature of quantum mechanics that allows particles to share a much closer
relationship than classical physics permits. A measurement on one part of an
entangled system reveals the properties of the other part, even if they are
physically separated.

Yes. But due to the nature of quantum entanglement this is unable to
transmit information from one part to another over a non-causal path.
For example, for spin-correlated particles the measurement of one spin
immediately lets you know what the spin of the other one is, but this
QUITE CLEARLY does not transfer any information[#] -- after that
measurement the only information you have is what you already knew by
making the measuremnet in the first place! Yes, there is information
transfer from the production of the pair to the measurement site, but
that's clearly over a causal path (because one particle travelled along
that path). And the nature of this information is subtle (it includes
correlations due to the entanglement)....

Net result: even for quantum systems the transfer of information
requires a causal path.

[#] Put one red and one white marble in an opaque sack. Remove
one and look at it -- you now know the color of the marble
in the sack without looking at it. Did this suddenly turn
the sack transparent? Obviously not. In this case you only
have the information you got from looking at the marble you
removed; inferences are NOT information (c.f. Claude
Shannon's work -- information is "surprise"). And don't
forget the necessity of knowing that EXACTLY one red and
EXACTLY one white marble were put into the sack; for
quantum systems, identical particles will cause you great
trouble...


So even if one of the entangled particles is in a
black hole we can gain information about that particle from the particle
that is not in the black hole.

Sure. So what? See above. Note that for this to occur the particle "in
the black hole" must have entered the horizon after the creation of the
entangled pair.


Moreover if a person in a black hole can
control an entangled particle that enters a black hole he can commutate with
the outside of the black hole.

Not true. Your claim is similar to the claim that the above sack
suddenly turned transparent. The point is: INFERRING properties is NOT
the same as measuring them; "knowing" does not always require transfer
of information.


BTW in quantum mechanics it is NOT possible to "control an entangled
particle" in such a way that it "controls" the other member of the
entangled pair -- any significant interaction with one of the particles
will destroy their entanglement....


Tom Roberts

davidoff404 wrote in message ...
James Briggs wrote:

[snip]

Being inside a black hole means that the particle would have to be
contained within a trapped surface, thereby ensuring that all
future-directed paths end on the singularity. Communication with any
region outside the event horizon is forbidden for exactly the same
reason that communication "through" the singularity is forbidden: causal
discontinuity.


Well and we should also mention that to get in to the black who
"someone" would have every particle of their body stretched to massive
thin pieces of spagetti before being crushing down in to super dense
collection of particles under intense gravity.

What would they say. "help"

flamestar wrote in message . ..

So how I don't think that this would work but I am not sure why,

Well your person has been compressed down to a dense tiny molecular
sized object within the black hole. This black hole is being flooded
by an practically infinite stream of photons sucked out of space and
how this tiny dense balls of quarks was going to find and read a
single photon seems a bit of a problem.

davidoff404 wrote in message ...
James Briggs wrote:

[snip]

Being inside a black hole means that the particle would have to be
contained within a trapped surface, thereby ensuring that all
future-directed paths end on the singularity. Communication with any
region outside the event horizon is forbidden for exactly the same
reason that communication "through" the singularity is forbidden: causal
discontinuity.

You are totally ignorant. You don't even know how to argue. You cite
no referrence nor mount no logical challange. You aren't even able to
follow the point. There are two particles. One particle is in the
Black Hole and can't get out. Howevewr the one outside the Black Hole
can tell us something about the particle in the Black Hole.

I would say read more but from you statements I doubt that you are
capible of learning.

James Briggs




Read some more.

Here is another cite that proves you wrong. I already knew my point
was already accepted physics before I posted to expose guys like you.

Here is the link and quote from the article.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/qu...anglement.html


"Let's back up a bit to a simpler thought experiment without black
holes. One classic EPR-like example is a pion decaying into an
electron- positron pair that fly off in opposite directions. Because
the pion has no spin, but electrons and positrons do, the two decay
products must have opposite spin. Now say that Alice and Bob are
standing on opposite sides of the decaying pion but very distant (so
any noncausality will be obvious). If Alice measures a particle with
spin up, then Bob has to have measured a spin down particle according
to quantum theory. This is the "spooky action at a distance" --
somehow one particle manages to tell the other *instantaneously* what
its spin was measured to be. This phenomenon of quantum nonlocality
has been demonstrated in a number of different experiments."


See it already has been done.

Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
James Briggs wrote:
It is possible for information to the leave a black hole.

Not in GR. Note that GR is the only theory for which we have a clear
definition of what a black hole is.

The quasi-quantum notions you introduce are in a gray area in which we
have no good theory, and therefore no firm knowledge. But there IS a lot
of knowledge about quantum mechanics itself, and your claims are in
conflict with that.


Entanglement is a
feature of quantum mechanics that allows particles to share a much closer
relationship than classical physics permits. A measurement on one part of an
entangled system reveals the properties of the other part, even if they are
physically separated.

Yes. But due to the nature of quantum entanglement this is unable to
transmit information from one part to another over a non-causal path.
For example, for spin-correlated particles the measurement of one spin
immediately lets you know what the spin of the other one is, but this
QUITE CLEARLY does not transfer any information[#] -- after that
measurement the only information you have is what you already knew by
making the measuremnet in the first place! Yes, there is information
transfer from the production of the pair to the measurement site, but
that's clearly over a causal path (because one particle travelled along
that path). And the nature of this information is subtle (it includes
correlations due to the entanglement)....

Net result: even for quantum systems the transfer of information
requires a causal path.

[#] Put one red and one white marble in an opaque sack. Remove
one and look at it -- you now know the color of the marble
in the sack without looking at it. Did this suddenly turn
the sack transparent? Obviously not. In this case you only
have the information you got from looking at the marble you
removed; inferences are NOT information (c.f. Claude
Shannon's work -- information is "surprise"). And don't
forget the necessity of knowing that EXACTLY one red and
EXACTLY one white marble were put into the sack; for
quantum systems, identical particles will cause you great
trouble...

Except the state of the entangled particle undetermined before you
look at the particle. With the marbles you have one red and one
white. With the particles you have two undetermined particles until
one is tested. Then you have two particles that you know about. So
there is a surprise when you find about one of the particles.




So even if one of the entangled particles is in a
black hole we can gain information about that particle from the particle
that is not in the black hole.

Sure. So what? See above. Note that for this to occur the particle "in
the black hole" must have entered the horizon after the creation of the
entangled pair.


Moreover if a person in a black hole can
control an entangled particle that enters a black hole he can commutate with
the outside of the black hole.

Not true. Your claim is similar to the claim that the above sack
suddenly turned transparent. The point is: INFERRING properties is NOT
the same as measuring them; "knowing" does not always require transfer
of information.


BTW in quantum mechanics it is NOT possible to "control an entangled
particle" in such a way that it "controls" the other member of the
entangled pair -- any significant interaction with one of the particles
will destroy their entanglement....

I still don't know how to communicate out of a Black Hole. The
Calcutta Paradox might alow a way. With the Calcutta Paradox shoot a
line of single photons at a mirror and have the mirror split the
photons in two if the photon is a wave and not split it is not a wave.
You can control if the wave splits or not later on by testing it as a
wave or a particle. So may be you could send a stream of photons into
a Black Hole and the person who is in the Black Hole could set up a
Telegraph based on testing the photon as a wave or a particle. Then
the photon that did not go into the Black Hole would reflect the test
done in the Black Hole. If the people outside the Black Hole detect a
wave then they know the person in the Black Hole tested the photon as
a wave. If there is no photon then they know the photon was tested as
a particle and therefore didn't split at the mirror.

Some how I don't think that this would work but I am not sure why.




Tom Roberts